It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: pheonix358
Just to correct this.
He married a 9 year old but ....
as far as I am aware ......
He didn't have sexual relations with the child until after 2 years.
It seems this makes a difference to some believers.
Most of our species has grown up a little, where this concept of a child bride sickens us .....
As It Should
P
originally posted by: MysterX
By ignoring the morality of the issue because it's how they were raised, and they enjoy the experience of eating meat.
Hypocritical? Probably, but as this thread is showing...we Humans are a very hypocritical bunch as a species, if it suits us we will build weapons that obliterate innocents, including many hundreds of thousands of children, but are quite happy to skip off to the treasury counting our profits from the sales of the weapons used to slaughter them...but seem to get quite upset when topics such as underage sex rears it's ugly head...hypocritical?
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
originally posted by: Vector99
This comment intrigued me. How do you explain the existence of incisor and canine teeth in humans?
What I meant to say, but didn't word it so well it seems, is that vegetarians are able to live normal lives and survive without eating meat, therefore non-vegetarians could technicality also survive if they chose not to eat meat. So why do non-vegetarians still eat meat?
ETA: For those curious: I am NOT a vegetarian. So although it might seem strange that I am arguing "in favour" of vegetarianism while I'm not even one myself, I am merely using the topic of Vegetarianism to demonstrate a point.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: crazyewok
The middle ages were just full of pedophiles.
And witch burners.
Ethical?
originally posted by: [post=20713974]Vector99
Can you show me any other herbivore with incisors and canines?
originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: bally001
It's the accepted historical age of Mary, it's what they did in that era.
Gross today? yes, but what's good for the god seemed to be good for the prophet .
The problem here is that it was 800 AD or there abouts. And the middle east. Pedophilia was still an unformed concept back then. You can't judge a historical figure by today's standards.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Thetan
I'm not hostile. Irritated might be more accurate. How many times do you want me to make the same point?
By the standards of the Maya and Aztecs performing human sacrifice it was not only ethical, it was actually sacred and necessary.
originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: angeldoll
Ah...but that's opening up a whole new can 'o worms...is it ethical to genetically fiddle with a child?
Artificial insemination is essentially what the 'Virgin birth' describes, (even holy artificial insemination is what it is) yet today, we would feel that to be as unethical as having outright intercourse with a young girl wouldn't we?